Posted By Cindy September 6, 2012
A former Secretary of Agriculture and US Trade Ambassador doubts Congress will get a farm bill done this month and he hopes the nation will stay focused on increasing export opportunities.
Dr. Clayton Yeutter touched on those topics and several others during a brief press appearance at the 2012 Farm Progress Show last week.
While Yeutter admits that Congress could pass a new farm bill if lawmakers wanted to do it, “the odds are that they won’t get it done before September 30th” and will probably pass some sort of extension, possibly until after the election or maybe for another year. “If they do it for six months, maybe they can still get it done by spring planting time, but if they extend for a year, then there’s a likelihood it will spill past spring planting which means you leave everyone in a position of uncertainty,” he said. “I don’t know what Congress will ultimately do, your guess is as good as mine.”
Clayton Yeutter, who served as agriculture secretary under President George H.W. Bush from 1989 to 1991, says there’s really not that much difference between the two bills, one passed by the full Senate and one yet to make it to the floor of the House. “My general reaction is, for Heaven’s sake folks, why can’t you mesh those differences because they’re not all that great,” Yeutter said.
Yeutter also served at USTR under President Reagen from 1985-1989 and he had some words of wisdom about trade agreements. “We have to keep our nose to the grindstone in this area and we need to make sure that the United States gets our due market share around the world,” he said. “We want to continue to develop the China market and we want to develop India as it begins to emerge and if we can get Japan in the TransPacific partnership negotiations, we’ve got a lot of additional opportunities in Japan.”
You can listen to all of Dr. Yeutter’s comments here: Clayton Yeutter at FPS
2012 Farm Progress Show Photo Album
Posted By Cindy September 5, 2012
Syngenta recently launched a new website called “Saving the Oasis” featuring three short documentaries that tell the story of how Atrazine helps farmers protect the environment and produce more food, and is one of the safest crop protection tools in the world.
“We wanted to correct some misinformation out there with the public on Atrazine,” said Ann Bryan with Syngenta. “We wanted to talk about how Atrazine protects the soil, protects the environment, creates wildlife habitat, but also how it increases yield with corn and sorghum and sugarcane.”
Syngenta was encouraging farmers at the 2012 Farm Progress Show last week to go on-line to SavingTheOasis.com and watch the videos themselves and urge non-farm friends to do so as well – with an incentive. “When you click on the movie, we will be donating $5 to the Iowa Food Bank Association, which feeds people who are hungry in the 99 counties of Iowa,” Ann said.
Listen to my interview with Ann here: Syngenta's Ann Bryan
The donations will continue throughout the month of September, which is Hunger Action Month. So, don’t just sit there – take some action!
Go to SavingTheOasis.com, watch a three minute video and feed some hungry folks in Iowa.
Posted By Cathryn September 4, 2012
Drowned out by adamant cries rising from sides that oppose or support a waiver of the Renewable Fuel Standard, an important question has been, in a large part, ignored. Would waiving the RFS have the desired affect? With a single, simple action, can the EPA actually lower corn prices and improve the profitability of the livestock industry?
This weekend, the Kansas City Star examined this important question and found that the frenzied fracas may be for naught. Simply, waiving the RFS might not significantly impact the price of corn.
Citing a variety of factors, from gasoline manufacturers’ dependence upon ethanol to increase the octane of our fuel to local and state clean air regulations, the article clearly outlines how many parties see enough value in ethanol to continue producing and blending it even if the mandate should be waived. Ethanol provides society with more benefits than satisfying a government regulation; one might even conclude that the benefits originally motivated the creation of that regulation.
What does this mean in the context of the ongoing waiver debate? It means that both sides should see the situation as complex and multifaceted. Full consideration and careful examination can help avoid unintended consequences, which it is in everyone’s benefit to avoid.
It also further illustrates the many ways in which ethanol benefits Americans. From lowering prices at the pump to helping keep the air clean, blending ethanol into fuel does more than check a box on a list of rules to follow. It blends the benefits of a domestically produced, environmentally friendly fuel into our nation.
Posted By Cathryn August 30, 2012
In yet another gross simplification of a complex situation, a media uproar has given new life to the food versus fuel debate of 2008. A throwback to election years past, this perennial panic-producing paradox invades our homes yet again coaxing us to join the fracas. It seems simple. Choose how the nation’s corn crop should be used.
Everyone scream an answer at the top of your terror-stricken lungs right now. As if generating mass thirst could somehow alleviate the effects of a drought…
Truth be told, with the exception of bio-engineered drought-resistant seeds, little does. Oversimplifying the problem and marching forward with blinders on to obscure any unnecessary, albeit factual and relevant factors, will only land us in a forest of unintended consequences.
Simply, there is nothing simple about corn use. In a piece on National Public Radio this morning, Lon Johnson, a feed coop manager from Minnesota, drove the complexity of the situation on the ground home while many drove to work. Johnson, who deals with the intricate relationship between price, availability and ethanol daily, explained how a halt in ethanol production locally affects his business, producing feed for cattle, chickens and other livestock.
“It doesn’t make it any easier for us because maybe we can buy our corn 20 cents a bushel cheaper, but it costs me 20 bucks more because we bought corn distillers from the ethanol plant. That’s one of the things people a lot of times keep forgetting with an ethanol plant. Even though they’re using a lot of corn, they’re still putting a lot of feed back into the market. Food versus fuel? I think we need ‘em both.”
Does the complexity of the situation make it any less important for the farmers, ranchers and ethanol plant investors who are all suffering through this hot, dry summer? Of course not. Nor does it make it less relevant for a public looking for answers in uncertain times.
Looking at the detail, whether it be the reintroduction of corn to the livestock from the feed market or the role ethanol plays in lowering fuel costs, does allow assessment of the situation in a comprehensive, accurate manner.
Sometimes, the correct answer turns out to be “all of the above.” Instead of being pushed to pick an arbitrary side of an oversimplified argument, take a cue from Johnson. Answer C, “we need ‘em both.”
Posted By Cindy August 29, 2012
The number of groups that have signed on to the diverse Farm Bill Now coalition has grown to 46 at last count and representatives from several of them were on hand this week at the Farm Progress Show to talk about why it is important for Congress to pass new legislation next month before the current bill expires.
“We are representing everything from row crops to specialty crops, livestock, equipment to farmers markets,” said National Corn Growers Association First Vice President Pam Johnson. “Very rarely do you hear of so many groups getting together for one joint message, and when you do hear that, you should listen.”
Among the diverse representation in the coalition is the Association of Equipment Manufacturers. “Our farmers, our manufacturers, our American workers and families, simply cannot afford to have Congress keep delaying this,” said AEM president Dennis Slater.
Other speakers for the coalition at the FPS included Ron Heck, board member of the 25×25 Alliance, American Soybean Association president Steve Wellman, Iowa Farm Bureau president Craig Hill and Iowa Farmers Union president Chris Peterson.
Listen to or download comments from all here: Farm Bill Now at FPS
2012 Farm Progress Show Photo Album
Posted By Cathryn August 28, 2012
In the California GMO Labeling debate, it seems everyone involved can agree upon one basic premise – consumers have a right to know. The debate occurs around exactly what that right entails.
Arguing to redefine terms such as “natural”, even to the exclusion of foods such as olive oil, proponents of the bill seem to believe consumers have a right to know exactly what their agenda-driven groups says that they do.
On the other hand, farmers believe that consumers have a right to know too. In a recent blog post, farmer Mike Haley carefully explained a side of the story that labeling loonies would prefer to push to the backburner. Walking readers through the specific actions that this law would require of him, Haley shows the hidden costs of supporting the propositions hidden agenda.
Take a minute to see the true costs of this measure. If it passes, everyone will pay.
Consumers have a right to know what they eat. They also have a right to know the consequences of their vote.
Posted By Cindy August 24, 2012
The American Farm Bureau Federation called for a National Day of Prayer for Drought Victims this week to remember the many individuals and families facing severe struggles due to this year’s devastating drought. While the “official” day has passed (it was Thursday August 23), no reason to stop praying and lots of reasons to start if you have not already.
References to St. Isidore the Farmer have been popping up lately in social media, invoking the intercession of the Catholic patron saint of farmers to pray for rain. This is being circulated even among non-Catholics. Might be a little late to pray for rain, but not too late to pray for farmers and ranchers hurt by the lack of it.
According to CatholicCulture.org, St. Isidore was born in Madrid, Spain, about the year 1110. He came from a poor and humble family and worked as a farm hand from childhood. It is said that domestic beasts and birds showed their attachment to him because he was gentle and kind to them. His wife Maria is also considered a saint. In 1947, St. Isidore was officially named the special protector of the National Catholic Rural Life Conference and American farmers.
CatholicCulture.org also has a lovely Novena prayer to St. Isidore which has beautiful reflections about farming as a partnership with God. Here is a short passage:
The farmer’s is a sacred calling because he is a collaborator with God in the work of His creation. … The farmer’s calling is one that must command great respect. Much knowledge and skill are required to manage well the farmstead with its land and fences, barns and granaries, tools, and machinery. Farming is among the greatest of human arts. The farmer must be an artisan and a craftsman, a capitalist, financier, manager, worker; a producer and a seller. He must know soil and seed, poultry and cattle; he must know when to till the soil, cultivate his fields, and harvest his crops. In the presence of his Lord the farmer should recall all this, not in a spirit of vainglory or pride, but in grateful appreciation of the calling that God gave him as a tiller of the soil. Praise and thanksgiving should rise in his heart as he reflects on the high regard the Lord has showered upon him and his work.
Posted By Cindy August 23, 2012
While the Summer Olympics were going on in London, a gold medalist from the Winter Olympics was talking corn in Omaha at the American Coalition for Ethanol conference, thanks to the Nebraska Corn Board.
Curt Tomasevicz, a member of the 2010 U.S. Olympic 4-man bobsled team, grew up in a small Nebraska farming community and now helps promote corn in the Cornhusker State. “That agricultural-based community got me to the Olympics,” Curt said of his hometown of Shelby, Nebraska, which boasts a population of 690. “I learned those lessons from those corn farmers that work hard every day, knowing that there’s good days and bad days, good years and bad years.”
Listen to Curt’s remarks at ACE here: Curt Tomasevicz at ACE
In an interview with Curt, he told me why he is a spokesperson for the Nebraska Corn Board. “To have that kind of support coming from a farm-based community, the logical thing for me to do is try to give something back to them,” he said. “Farmers are not competing for gold medals but at the same time they’re working hard to produce something, like corn. They work just as hard, if not harder, than Olympians.” Curt does personal appearances for the Nebraska Corn Board around the state at agricultural and civic events, as well as schools.
Listen to my interview with Curt here: Curt Tomasevicz interview
Kim Clark, director of biofuels development for the Nebraska Corn Board, was also at the ACE conference and she not only introduced Curt at the luncheon where he spoke, but she also gave an update on what they are doing to help get more blender pumps out in the state. “The corn board feels blender pumps are really important, especially for the state of Nebraska, since we are the number two producer of ethanol,” she said, noting that they set aside $750,000 this year to help promote installation of pumps. There are nearly 20 in the state now and about 30 new pumps are expected to be installed within the next year.
One of their challenges is getting into the larger cities of Nebraska, like Omaha, where there are currently no blender pumps available. “With the new grant program of $40,000 per location, that has gotten a lot more retailers interested,” she said.
Listen to my interview with Kim here: NE Corn Board's Kim Clark
Posted By Cathryn August 23, 2012
Sometimes, it is easy to lump people into a broad category. Elitist or plebian. Enviro-hippie or pollution-spewing Hummer nut. Midwestern bumpkin or coastal snob. While these labels make for a quick, easy way to write off people to whom we would prefer not listen, they do not account for our incredible ability as human beings to become deeper, more complex individuals. .
Two starkly different articles published this week on the role of farmers in modern America illustrated the importance of transformatory voices and the shared stories of people who have taken on unexpected roles can add nuance and insight to the national dialogue. A dialogue which, particularly in this election year, has grown shallow, partisan and generally uninformed.
Mark Bittman, a New York Times writer known more for his exquisite palate than economic aptitude, took on the state of U.S. farming from the viewpoint of a frequent diner at Manhattan’s upscale eateries. Lamenting the inability of the general public to find the boutique produce his beloved celebre-chefs spend days chasing down, he boldly proposes overhauling all of agriculture to more closely resemble his Utopian vision. In Bittman’s America, everyone not only has seasonal access to the products he enjoys, which notably must not include a good steak, but also has the time and skill to lovingly coax them into gourmet dishes. The farmers whom he deems “real” likewise coax the finest heirloom tomatoes and leafy kale from one or two acres of land. He argues that that this will employ more Americans, who he presumes wish to be farmers, and will provide healthier food for all, with food stamp programs to help us all afford his posh produce.
A knee-jerk response would be to trash all intellectuals, painting them wish a broad brush as cluelessly out-of-touch with the vast majority of Americans who refuse to pay thirty bucks for a cup of soup, let alone spend countless hours in attempts to emulate it at home. Although tempting, this adds nothing to the dialogue.
Victor Davis Hanson does. In his Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Hanson writes the prose equivalent of an ode to the farmers who persevere in this year’s drought. Speaking of the character of the people who stand tall while the drought beats down upon them, Hanson champions crop insurance and agricultural productivity. A writer from California’s abundant heartland who grew up on a farm, he knows that of which he speaks.
“The mystery isn’t that we have devastating droughts like this summer’s, but that so few Americans manage to produce so much food against such daunting odds,” he explains, noting this view comes from personal experiences with his family’s raisin farm.
Eloquently weaving in references to ancient Greek philosophy, Hanson provides a look at the farmer that many would rarely see. Having more experience on the farms of California than Kansas, Hanson’s view of the farmer and modern productivity could grow with further study into the importance of ethanol, but why throw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater?
Hanson says something that, particularly in this hot, volatile climate, ALL farmers need to hear. You are appreciated. Facing a natural disaster of historic proportions, he voices the support that most Americans feel for the men and women who feed them.
Conversely, Bittman also offers a valuable lesson, particularly when contrasted with Hanson. It is vital that American farmers create an open dialogue about what they do. Farmers already have an amazing story. They live it every day. In sharing it, they foster a cooperative, positive environment, something that should be valued in these divisive times.
One thing is for certain. If Manhattan’s elite chefs take charge of this conversation, a seriously skewed version of reality may gain a foothold. It would be a shame. We should celebrate reality; we should work to show the strong, resilient spirit behind modern ag innovation.
At NCGA, we have been doing this for many years. For those with most interest in learning about the abundance and, yes, diversity, of American agriculture, we offer links to:
Posted By Cathryn August 20, 2012
Hypocrisy has a strange way of coming to light during campaign season. For candidates and for ballot initiatives alike, the incongruent motivations of the groups promoting a particular vote often tanks what, at first glance, seemed to be a positive, simple campaign. A ruling last week clarifying the ballot language to be used on California Proposition 37, the GMO-labeling law, brought the hypocritical intentions of the measures proponents to the forefront.
Simply, Prop. 37 backers claim consumers have a right to know if the food they purchase contains any ingredients which have been genetically modified. Playing off public fears of the unknown, they appeal to mass hysteria instead of the reasoned, scientific judgment of relevant authorities, including the World Health Organization and American Medical Association, that genetically engineered crops pose no health risk.
On the surface, the claims of those supporting the labeling-measure appear to be about consumer rights. From early on in the campaign, it became apparent this measure was different, as it would base a mandatory food label on something for an unscientific reason. Now, it appears these agenda-driven niche market proponents have masked another troubling provision with their consumer rights costume.
The labeling mandated in this proposition actually does not only target genetically modified ingredients, it also targets any processed food, even those without GE ingredients. In addition to the new labels, these supposed champions of the people would ban any processed food, regardless of what is actually in it, from claims of being “natural.”
Could this actually add to consumer confusion and hurt farmers? Yes, it most certainly could.
In a recent Farm Press interview, one California olive oil producer explained that, even though genetically modified olives do not even exist, his oils would no longer be able to be labeled as “natural” simply because the olives were processed into oil.
Does this seem a bit over the top to anyone? Or is anyone even paying attention?
If there is not a greater public outrage forming over situations like these, the later seems more probable. Which is troubling because, on its very surface, proponents of the labeling measure have cloaked it in the nearly sacred robes of a consumer’s right to information. Underneath those shiny garments lies something far less glorious, a regulation that would mandate the use of labels that would confuse and mislead shoppers.
If no one is paying attention now, how can they possibly be expected to understand what exactly they see should this pass? Seemingly, Yes on 37 campaigners hope that they pay just as little attention then.